Fair Use

Menus can be works of art.[1]

"Art" of course, is a subjective term, and has no precise, stand-along definition in copyright law.[2]  So more importantly for this discussion, a "menu" can be a composition of such originality and substance, that it is protected by copyright law.

This protection can be for the work as a whole (the entire menu), and/or it can be for individual elements in the work.  It can cover stand-alone elements (such as a cover photo image or flavor text[3] used to describe a signature dish), and, in these days of Slice and Grubhub and Yelp, it can be for the menu as a physical object, or a version published only online.  It can cover the original art in a trademarked logo, whether that art was generated by an independent contractor or employee.

Recent case law illustrates how these protections can be sliced-and-diced, and also shows just how nasty litigation over restaurant copyrights and trademarks can be.[4]  Menus and the logos and information they carry can be the apex of a restaurant's brand, reputation, and intellectual property.  So the member is right to take this concern seriously.

With care, however, the act of creating an online archive of carefully curated restaurant menus, for well-articulated academic purposes, should be able to find protection in the line of "fair use" case law building on the 2nd Circuit's 2015 decision in Authors Guild v. Google,[5] which relates to the creation of online repositories.[6]

As the Court found in that case: The purpose of the copying [to create the online resource] is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.

The key to scanning and incorporating menus still under copyright protection into an archival database of menus at a library or educational institution, while taking advantage of the fair use defense set forth in Authors Guild, is to do so in a manner that:

• Yields an asset that is useful beyond the mere replication of a single menu;
• Ensures the archive will not enable use of its images in place of a copyright-protected original text or image; and
• Uses an array of professionally developed standards to confirm and assert the academic and/or cultural value of the archive as a whole, and the inclusion of a particular work in that archive.

There are numerous techniques to achieve this.

First and foremost, the purpose of the archive should be developed and set forth on the archive in clear, well-developed terms. The database should not look like a group of menus simply gathered together by a person who happens to have made a collection of his favorite restaurants.[7] The cultural value and purpose of the collection should be stated in very certain terms, and consistently repeated throughout the archive's pages, cataloging text, and metadata.

Second, the function of the archive should be such that users can demonstrably benefit from the aggregated content and information. For instance, menus should be searchable by geographic region, type of food, notable characteristics, and other relevant factors...giving the aggregated content value beyond what is created by each individual entry.[8]

Third, the archive should adopt a standard approach to assessing and depicting the authorship, ownership, and copyright status of archived works.[9]

Fourth, the images themselves should be created so that a third party using the image cannot create a credible replica of the menu or the original originating restaurant's logo or copyright-protected content. A picture taken with a border, or the use of a watermark indicating that the image is part of the archive are some common ways to do this; technology creates many other and evolving options.

Fifth, since it will help mitigate damage in the event a copyright owner simply refuses to believe an archive has made a "fair use" of their content, the overall approach of the collection should be assessed using your institution's fair use assessment form, and that record should be kept. Why is that?  Being able to demonstrate a good-faith effort to establish that the use is fair can help mitigate damages, and can be a deterrent to a plaintiff pursuing a lawsuit all the way to a verdict.

Sixth, the "Terms and Conditions" of your online archive should feature a process for owners to report good-faith suspicion of copyright infringement, and your institution should have a registered agent as provided by the DMCA.  An example of this type of statement can be found in the DPLA's Terms and Conditions as of April 15, 2021: https://dp.la/about/terms-conditions. [10]

Seventh, if you haven't, consider the benefits of registering an agent under the DMCA, and if it's a good move for your institution, register (you can look up and see if your institution already has an agent here: https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/).

And finally, to the extent possible, for steps five, six, and seven, work with your institution's attorney, who can connect all these steps and the academic activity they support with your institution's insurance and risk tolerance.[11]

So, with all that as background, here are my answers to the questions:

Can we scan and put online menus dated after 1977 (and especially more recent – up until 2021) if it is for educational purposes?

Answer: Yes, copyright-protected materials can be duplicated if the use is fair; by following the cautions above, an institution can set itself up to both create a highly useful and important archive, to claim fair use, and to mitigate damages in the event of a worst-case scenario.

If we do scan them, would we need permissions from every single chef/owner?

Answer: if the use is fair, there is no need for permission...and in fact, asking for it could be introduced by a plaintiff as an admission that you concluded you needed permission.

Now, a word of caution on this: if your archive is part of a larger institution, the other departments of that larger institution need to be alerted that just because an image is on your archive, that doesn't mean they can use it for a catalog cover, a web site image, or a poster advertising your institution.  After all, a use that is "fair" for an academic archive might not be so "fair" if it is on a brochure for a program or event (even if the program or event is not subject to a charge).  This is especially true since menus will often feature not only copyright-protected material, but trademarks (which, unlike copyrights, do not expire if they are in continuous use).

The copyright status of menus in general has always seemed murky to me, but I don’t even know where to go to find clear answers for this situation.

Because the menus themselves can be protected by copyright--as well as the individual elements in the menus--that "murkiness" is here to stay. Unless a menu is clearly in the public domain, it is best to assume that it--or some part of it--is subject to copyright, and remember that a restaurant's name and logo are its intellectual property, too.  The reason an archival initiative can make this assumption, and still hope to achieve its objective, is because by carefully and deliberately assembling those individually protected elements, they are creating a broader work with value beyond each individual element.

The value of a collection of menus is likely obvious to librarians, academics, and information managers.  But just as an example of how valuable such a resource can be, even outside the field of scholarship, I'll share a personal anecdote: while working on a case for a neighborhood fighting a fast food drive-thru in their dense, urban neighborhood, I used the New York Public Library's digital collection to find a menu for the "Little Harlem Hotel" in Buffalo NY.  The menu was part of the research we used to make the case that the neighborhood has a history worth fighting for. 

We lost the case,[12] but that menu helped create a vivid argument about the history of the neighborhood and its vibrant legacy, and that argument was energized by the archive.  An online archive of menus can be important in countless ways; finding the right legal recipe to make it happen is worth it.

Thank you for a great question.

[1] If you are skeptical about "menus as art," check out the menu here, and tell me if the rooster doesn't convince you that he could be in a museum.

[2] "Visual art" does, and of course "art" as a general term is used regularly in copyright jurisprudence. But "art" remains a subjective term.

[3] Yep, that's a "flavor text" pun.  Yum.

[4] The 2019 case Khan v Addy's BBQ LLC, (419 F Supp 3d 538), involving former business partners operating BBQ joints in Tea Neck, NJ, and Elmont, NY, shows just how convoluted these things can get.  Another case from 2018, 784 8th St. Corp. v Ruggiero, 2018 US Dist LEXIS 5405 shows how copyright ownership to logos and menus can change based on who did the work; also, it shows that if you are in business with family, it is important to have a good lawyer!

[5] Authors Guild v Google, Inc., 804 F3d 202.  The Supreme Court denied a chance to review this case, leaving the 2nd Circuit's decision intact. 

[6] The database created by Google in the Authors Guild case was not a straightforward online archive like the one described by the member here.  However, the case is still applicable in several important ways.

[7] I know a professional archivist would not do this, but this is a very important distinction.

[8] Other "relevant factors" of which I, a food philistine living in the city that invented Buffalo Wings, and originally from the city that invented Chicken Riggies and Half-Moon cookies, am shamefully unaware.

[9] The approach of the Digital Public Library of America ("DPLA") happens to be my favorite, seen here in this document about the Erie Canal, but is not the only standard out there. What's important is that the institution identified a system that works for it--and then consistently uses that system.

[10] It would be deeply ironic if the DPLA sent me a "cease and desist" for linking to their excellent resources.

[11] Since every archive or library has a different structure and different approach, while inspiration can be drawn from fellow institutions, the final approach and policies should be reviewed by a lawyer for your institution whenever possible.  As just a threshold issue, state-affiliated institutions have different risk considerations than independent not-for-profits.

[12] It hurt to lose, but the damage to the neighborhood hurt more.

Your understanding is correct, but there are three additional details it is helpful to consider in this type of situation:

First, when a school confronts a concern like this, it should take a careful look at the license (the permission to use a copyright-protected composition) it purchased. 

This is because a license for sheet music can convey not only permission for on-site performance and broadcast, but also "recording" and "publishing" (posting).  I have observed that the range of these permissions will vary not only between publishers, but even between songs at the same publisher.  So, before recording (or deliberately not recording), check the fine print; you might have more (or less) permission than your district thought.

Second, it is good to consider why the school wants to make the recording and post it on the school website.  Is it to simply showcase the band on a page dedicated to the school's achievements?  Is it for fundraising purposes?  Or is it posted as part of a student newspaper or student club newscast?  If the post is part of an academic endeavor--especially one related to commentary or gathering news--posting part of a recorded performance could be a fair use. 

And third--though still on the topic of fair use--it is important to remember that "Circular 21" pertaining to "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians" confirms that the Copyright Act allows educators to make:

"A single copy of recordings of performances by students...for evaluation or rehearsal purposes...."

Now, under no circumstances am I saying that this provision gives a school permission to record and publish (post) a copyright-protected musical work.  But a copy that is created incident to streaming[1] can be retained by the school or teacher, and perhaps posted to an intranet, if they plan to use it for rehearsal or evaluation later. 

The important take-away from all of these is: your school may have options from not only within but additional to the license.  By assessing the precise permission your school received, the reasons for recording, and the reasons for posting, a school can consider their full range of options.[2]

Of course, what copyright law can give, contract law can take away.  So, if your school has secured a license with a specific agreement that you will not make and post a recording, remember that's a contract term it agreed to, even if fair use would otherwise authorize the use.[3]

I know, I know, thinking about copyright while planning to make the most of a performance can feel like allegro, adagio, adagio, allegro...

Just andante, like the question models, plan what you need, and you'll find a good pace!
Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] I know "streaming" and "recording" are different, but as a technical matter, "streaming" does create a digital copy, even if it is fleeting.

[2] This answer does not consider limited posting on an intranet, although I'd argue that with planning such posting could be consistent with the CONTU guidelines for retaining a copy for rehearsal or evaluation.

[3] This is why people negotiating for license content should always be trained to not negotiate away rights your district has by law.

There are a lot of legal technicalities hidden in this question, but before we get to them, here is my overall advice: The more your library generates unique, custom content showing the people, personalities and experiences of your library on your social media,[1] the more you can include copyright and trademark-restricted content in social media promotions.

For example: If a library takes a picture of a new DVD, with only the cover content in the photo, and posts it to social media, that could potentially trigger some type of copyright/trademark concern.  But if that same library takes a picture of their librarian holding that same DVD while giving a thumbs-up ("This new movie is librarian-approved!") that concern is greatly reduced, since the proprietary work is only part of the message.

This same guidance applies for book covers, new games, and other media packaging.  Since copyright and/or trademark can both be invoked to protect any of that content (although just how protected the content is will vary from item to item), displaying it on social media as part of your library's overall personality and outreach is much better than using a photo or scan of the book/cover on its own.  When you don't have permission, use of a proprietary image as part of a related but larger social media message ("We have this great book!") is generally a safer approach to image use.

Now, at this point I must note: the "image use" in this question is different from using cover content (let's call them "thumbnails," for nostalgia's sake) supplied by providers like Overdrive for your library's online catalog.  Use of thumbnail content in your catalog (and thus, generally, on your library's website) is likely restricted in the license from the provider, but supplied with the understanding that the thumbnails will be viewed via your library's website as part of the service.[2]

Now, as to announcing movie nights...this question gave me a double-take, because neither copyright nor trademark, in and of themselves, bar listing the bald fact that your library is hosting a (licensed) movie night, and the title of the movie—whether via a poster, or via social media.[3]

But since I have never known a librarian to submit a baseless question to this service, I dug a bit more, and found this statement[4] in the Swank guidance for libraries using their "single event' license:

"If the public library’s social media accounts are set to private, the title may be used. If the library’s social media accounts are not set to private, it is recommended the title not be included. The movie event may be promoted on the social media pages with a link to the title on the library’s website."

So to be clear: copyright doesn't forbid promoting the movie, but restrictions on promotion could be a requirement of the license (the contract allowing your library to show the movie), or (as the case here) a "recommendation"[5] of the licensor, likely at the request of the trademark holder.  This is one of the more bizarre "recommendations" I have run into in the contract-analysis business, and I thank the member for sending it along!

And that's it.  Again, the take-away from this answer is: the more your library generates unique, custom content showing the people, personalities and experiences of your library on your social media, the more you can include copyright and trademark-restricted content in social media promotions as a component of that larger messaging.  Along with being a type of risk management,[6] this will also lend itself to your library having better, richer, and more interesting social media, so it's a win-win; sometimes the law and quality control go hand-in-hand.

And now, to go watch the new [TITLE OF MOVIE REDACTED] with my family.

[1] For purposes of this question, I do not consider your library's website "social media," since in many ways these days the website is simply the virtual part of the library.  "Social media," to me, are third-party contractors: the usual and growing array, like FB, IG, TT, Twitter, etc.

[2]That's how OverDrive's does it, anyway: "OverDrive grants you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Embed Code to display Samples on Your Site."

[3] Using movies stills and original posters can pose a concern, but here, we're just talking about announcing the title.

[4] You can find it, too: https://www.swank.com/public-libraries/faq/#afterpurchase6

[5] That said: "it is recommended" is not the hallmark of contractually enforceable language.  My guess is that this is something Swank told its content providers it would do, but everyone realized that as a hard requirement, it is pretty ridiculous ("We're showing a movie!  Can't say the title!") and could cost them business. I can see why content providers would ask for it, though, and I bet it shows up in other licenses.  If you have a license with a requirement like this, please send us a copy; I collect contract artifacts like this.

[6] Because it will make it much easier to claim fair use, and also make it much less likely that your library will be accused of infringement in the first place.

This question is a good question for the bar exam!  It is a great blend of contract law and copyright.

Well, that's enough positivity for today; time for the answer, which is...

No.

Here’s the simply reason why I say “no”: as the member states, Netflix, Hulu, etc. tend to[1] restrict their content for personal use, meaning: no classroom/board room viewings.  This means that even if the use is "fair" or otherwise non-infringing, non-personal-use viewing is barred by the agreement the account holder has with the service.

The more sophisticated basis for me saying "no," is this: Netflix, Hulu, and their ilk bar group viewing not only because of the contractual obligations they have to their content owners, but also because to do otherwise would mess with their economic model.  In short: it will cost them money.  So even if a copyright owner says it's okay, they might not be inclined to consent to a use contrary to their contract.

That said, to add to the law-school-ness of your question, I'll add to your scenario:

If the student obtains a DVD or finds an online copy of the 5 minutes they need, and plays that copy (not the one from a commercial content service) to the class, if the student truly has proper permission of the copyright owner, then what would otherwise be an infringement is not.[2]

Of course, this requires a DVD,[3] or an online copy from a source that doesn't bar the use via contract.[4]  And of course, my scenario defeats the purpose of your question, which is to view the 5 minutes of the film in the format that is (likely) the most convenient: streaming.

I am sorry to be a bummer.

[1] There are of course exceptions, as these services can feature education-specific content intended for educational use.  But those are the exceptions, not the general rules (at least right now).

[2] Sadly, this hack does not work if you use your personal on-demand account to make the copy.  See how Netflix bars this: "Except as explicitly authorized in these Terms of Use, you agree not to archive, download, reproduce, distribute, modify, display, perform, publish, license, create derivative works from, offer for sale, or use content and information contained on or obtained from or through the Netflix service." Those pesky lawyers think of everything!

[3] Which are quickly on their way to becoming as obsolete as—but not as cool as--vinyl, or cassette tapes.

[4] Which makes it painfully likely the copy is not 100% legit.

My favorite DJ-related story is about how "scratching" a record,[1] as both a musical instrument and an act of composition, evolved in the hip-hop scene of the late 1970's and early 80's.[2]  It is a story of technological innovation, of community culture, and (as all good stories are) controversy.[3]  DJ's, like all contributing figures to culture, make for compelling scholarship.  So I am not surprised to see this question about audio-visual content portraying a DJ on a library archive.

The short answer is: sure, it could be a violation; but there are five things that can keep it on the right side of the law—or at least mitigate the risk if there is an unintentional violation.

Here are those five "things":

First thing

Is the posted video part of a well-developed and organized collection or archive?

If "yes," go on.

Second thing

Does the metadata on the unique video reflect that it is part of a well-developed and organized collection?

If "yes," go on.

Third thing

Is the music part of a recording of an event, or is the music a separate track with all other ambient sound (the crowd, street noise, the DJ talking over the music) removed (or never there)?

Even if "no" go on, but have the next two really, really tight.

Fourth thing

Has your library[4] conducted and documented[5] a "fair use" analysis[6]  of its posting of this particular content, and to the best of its ability, reflected accurate ownership of the item in the metadata and item information on the archive?

If “yes,” go on.

Fifth thing

Does your library have a "notice and takedown" contact point posted on its website, so anyone who believes the content is an infringement can complain, AND has your library registered[7] for "safe harbor" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?[8]

If "yes," DJ on!

Why do I have to do the "5-step hustle" to answer what seems like a simple (if compound) question?  Because how and why content is used can transform "infringing use" to non-infringing "fair use."  For a component of a scholarly or historic video archive, this means being able to show that a musical recording incorporated into an audio-visual record is not merely a gratuitous use of the audio content, but rather, a critical element of a work that transcends (and doesn't simply replace) the purpose of the original. 

This is, in some ways, a tall order.  But if you follow steps "1" through "4" above, you significantly increase your likelihood of getting it right. And as for step 5: the DMCA has been in the news, recently, as a part of the national info-tech infrastructure that is due for an overhaul.  But for now, it can protect certain kinds of service providers (like search engines, directories, and other information location tools) from liability for third-party infringement, and it is an essential part of any information database's copyright compliance toolkit.

Thank you for a good question.

[1] Which makes a sound like either "schkud-shckud-shzyaaa" or "hschhzka- hschhzka-zreek" depending on how you translate it into onomatopoeia, along with the skill and intent of the person doing the scratching.

[2] According to his tag in the Cornell University Hip-Hop Collection, scratching was invented by Grandwizzard Theodore.  However, there is some assertion that Grandmaster Flash put Theodore on the path to the scratch.  Either way, it is a good story.

[3] If you are looking for a new era to get obsessed with, early Hip-Hop is a good one.  It is replete with geniuses, scandal, and triumph—and provides insight into cultural and community factors relevant to today.

[4] This 5-step analysis assumes your library is a not-for-profit educational institution (like a public library).

[5] As in: done the analysis in writing (generally a form), and retained the form.

[6] From 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c)(2): "...The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords..."  Of course, making video "available" can be considered a transmission under certain circumstances (like streaming), so make sure your "fair use" conclusion is solid.

[7] Your institution can register for "safe harbor" in some instances (when it is more of a "provider" than a "publisher") here: https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/

[8] I like the way Creative Commons does it: https://creativecommons.org/dmca/

Since the onset of pandemic restrictions, "Ask the Lawyer" has written a lot on different variations of this topic.[1]

Since I am tired of being the party pooper on this issue,[2] I am offering up something new.  Here it is:

Don't do it...unless you make it something new.

What do I mean by "something new"?  I mean a use that is so clever, so additive, that even though it uses a copyright-protected work, it creates a work with independent meaning.

Examples of this "something new" are:

• Extensive[3] "color commentary" combined with the reading.
• Replacing the characters in the books with people in your town to make a witty commentary about town life.[4]
• Combining the reading with a special talent, such as reading each sentence of a travel book while traveling to a different yoga position, or reading a baking scene in a book while making a cake. 
• Humorous juxtaposition, like reading the first scene of Moby Dick[5] while fishing, or reading a book about puppies to your cat.[6]

Despite all the wishful writing out there, the cloud of the pandemic did not bring us the silver lining of automatic expansion of fair use.  That said, it hasn't diminished fair use.  So, if your library:

• Isn't using the event as a fund-raiser;
• Is using the event to educate and engage the public;
• Requires readers to not use the entire work; and
• Requires a transformative use, like the examples given above...

...[7] there is a strong chance your event can go on as (virtually) planned. [8]

Good luck and happy reading!

[1] See Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic, Phone recordings of stories and copyright, Comments on Fair Use During COVID-19 and Online Library Programming (Any Type of Program).

[2] The answer is "Don't do it, unless you have permission or the work is in the public domain."

[3] "Extensive" means incisive comments at least every paragraph.

[4] Since I don't want to help you avoid a copyright claim only to wind up with a defamation law suit, if you do this, avoid using books that take deep and honest looks at human nature (No William Faulkner, no Maya Angelou, and certainly no Zadie Smith).  Use sunny books that make the best of things!

[5] This is a bad example because Moby Dick is in the public domain.  Which reminds me: you can also try using books in the public domain (published before 1924).

[6] Puppies and a cat?! 50% chance to go viral on day 1. 

[7] Which just happen to line up with the four factors of fair use.

[8] Just in case this suggestion appeals to readers, here is some suggested event recruitment text, based on the member's question:

It's time for our annual 24 hour read-aloud!  Usually, we have people camped on the front lawn but due to our work this year to keep everyone healthy, we can't hold this event in person.  Instead, we will do it virtually.

Here are the details for this year's readers: instead of reading an entire book, please work with us to film you reading from the first chapter from one of your favorite books, along with comments or a special related activity by you!  The final product will help us celebrate reading AND the personalities in our town.  Be as creative as you like, but the added content has to be related somehow to the book.

For this answer, we are again joined by Jessica Keltz, associate attorney at the Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC.

As we noted in our March 24 Ask The Lawyer answer (Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic), copyright law does still apply despite the pandemic and the many needs it has created for alternative outlets, resources and programming.

For a public library, unless the service is an adaptation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, any recording of a copyrighted work needs to be made with the permission of the rights holder. Under fair use doctrine, limited excerpts can be read, interspersed with commentary. But a full work presented alone in its entirety or in substantial excerpts, without the permission of the rights holder, may not be. This doctrine remains in effect.

One solution to consider is reading either works that are in the public domain, and/or works whose rights holders have given permission for this type of use during the pandemic or otherwise. Readers may have heard about LeVar Burton Reads, a pandemic podcast from the iconic Reading Rainbow host, in which Burton encountered this exact struggle and was given permission by noted authors including Neil Gaiman and Jason Reynolds. While most local libraries will not have Burton’s star-studded cast of Twitter followers from which to draw partnerships, they may find folks in their own communities who are happy to freely share their own works.

A list of ideas for children’s books in the public domain is here: https://concretecomputing.com/thoughts/list-of-public-domain-free-books-for-kids-by-grade-level/

Project Gutenberg is also often recommended for searching for works in the public domain: http://www.gutenberg.org/

Friends, lawyers, librarians: as my former law school faculty will tell you, my fair use cup is always half full.  I err on the side of information wanting “to be free.”  And if I wrote copyright law, it would be a very different-looking regime.[1]

That said, for those of you reviewing the Public Statement of Library Copyright Specialists: Fair Use & Emergency Remote Teaching & Research, and considering its application to your institution, I want to urge a very precise caution—a precise caution I do not see in the Statement, and an absence I believe could cause undue risk to many[2].

Before I get into the caution, I want to say:

• I appreciate that “fair use” is in a constant state of warfare akin to a WWI fight for no-man’s land.[3]
• I appreciate that now may be the time to strike a blow against exploitive publishers, whose actions exploit academic professionals providing content, while driving up costs for students.  
• I appreciate that game-changing cases like Hathi Trust don’t happen unless someone decides to be bold.

But I am an in-the-trenches attorney.  I am not (and do not have the qualifications nor patience to be) an academic attorney nor a legislator.  In terms of this battle, I am a mere street-fighter.[4]  So here are my thoughts from the streets:

Fair use is a large concept, but its cases are fought on a case-by-case, content-specific basis.

So, if your institution chooses to accept the gambles posed by the Statement—that sometime in 2023, a court will find that a public health emergency impacts a fair use analysis, OR that in the coming recovery, academic publishers will be too wary of negative pushback[5] to sue a targeted few institutions to teach them a “lesson” about copyright[6]—use your institution’s “fair use checklist”[7] to document that you have made the determination to use a particular work, at a particular time, in that particular amount, in good faith.

Why?  If you are an educational institution, under Section 504 of the Copyright Act, even if the Statement’s arguments for fair use are found not to hold water, your good-faith determination could limit your damages.[8] [9]  That, in turn, will position your lawyers to ensure the case never sees the inside of the courtroom.  This is especially true since for those 504 (c)(2) covers, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the publisher) to prove the bad faith of the defendant (who will hopefully not be you).  But again, this happens on a use-by-use, work-by-work basis.

I want to emphasize this step because in my experience, many smaller educational institutions and libraries do not have in-house copyright specialists, or lawyers, urging them to use a fair use checklist or similar documentation.  While for some institutions, a fair use checklist might be as assured a factor as, say, the fact that graduation happens in Spring,[10] at other places, the idea of documenting a fair use determination might not even be on the radar.

Of course, reading the signs in the wind,[11] my sense is that some people want this case to see the inside of a courtroom (and they are probably hoping for a 2^nd, 7^th, or 9^th circuit judge). Further, based on past fair use battles, my guess is some institutions have decided they will be the frontline warriors in the fight.  For those warriors, I wish you god speed, a keen eye, and a sharp (legal) spear.

For the rest of you, if you decide to follow the guidance in the Statement,[12] I urge you to go into it with your eyes wide open, to use extreme caution, to show you are fully considering the four fair use factors--and if you decide, on a case-by-case basis, that you have a fair use, save the documentation.

[1] For instance, the exclusive rights held by non-original authors would diminish much, much sooner.  Fair use factors would also be much different.  Oh, and the whole area of law would consider modern technology. 

You know, some simple changes!

[2] Or rather, the select, targeted few the academic publishing companies will choose to teach a lesson.

[3] I am listening to the soundtrack for “Wonder Woman” right now, so trench warfare is on my brain.

[4] Many of the Endorsers and Signatories are Generals, or at least Captains, in this fight.

[5] A consideration for public regard I have not seen them overly cautious about, to date.  But who knows?  Maybe this will be their Ebenezer Scrooge moment.

[6] AKA in the publishing biz as “protecting our rights.”

[7] I have always loved this one: https://copyright.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Fair_Use_Checklist.pdf. Cornell, my friends (maybe it’s because I am from Central New York).

[8] Section 504(c)(2) provides that where an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, infringed copyrighted material in the honest belief that what they were doing constituted fair use, the court is precluded from awarding any statutory damages. It is intended that, in cases involving this provision, the burden of proof with respect to the defendant’s good faith should rest on the plaintiff.

[9]Yes, I am linking to Cornell’s site for the citation to 504, and the Statement has both a Cornell Endorser and a Signatory.  Cornell is a mighty copyright fortress and their participation is one of many signs that this document says “bring it.”

[10] Well, it used to.  We are dealing with uncertain times.

[11] A dramatic-sounding way to say “reading comments online.”

[12] Which many lawyers, including myself, will struggle with.  Lawyers can be creative and bold, but unless our clients tell us they are willing to take a risk, we are creatures of precedent.

This one is tricky.

It’s tricky because it stands on a no-man’s land comprised of fair use, library law, contract, and licensing.  This is a place where libraries boldly go on a routine basis, but lawyers fear to tread.  But we’ll try and parse it out.

To do so, we need to remember some “Considerations”:

Consideration #1: Section 108 (d) of the Copyright Act allows a library to duplicate and distribute, for non-commercial use, a “small part” of an audio recording based on a request of a patron or another library.

Consideration #2:  Section 108 (e) of the Copyright Act allows a library to duplicate and distribute, again for non-commercial use, the entirety of an audio recording based on a request of a patron or another library, IF a replacement copy cannot be purchased for a reasonable price.

Consideration #3: Disappointingly and tragically (but predictably), musical works are excluded from Section 108.  What does that mean?  Here’s an example: a recording of Robert Frost reading a poem may be duplicated under 108...but a recording of that same poem set to music may not. 

Consideration #4: Although Congress legislated that 108 protections don’t apply to musical works, it has also stated[1]:

…it is important to recognize that the doctrine of fair use under section 107 remains fully applicable to the photocopying or other reproduction of such works. In the case of music, for example, it would be fair use for a scholar doing musicological research to have a library supply a copy of a portion of a score or to reproduce portions of a phonorecord of a work. Nothing in section 108 impairs the applicability of the fair use doctrine to a wide variety of situations involving photocopying or other reproduction by a library of copyrighted material in its collections, where the user requests the reproduction for legitimate scholarly or research purposes. [emphasis added]

Which brings us to…

Consideration #5:  A library can make a partial or complete copy if it is a “fair use.”  Fair use is determined on a work-by-work basis, applying the four factors[2] set out in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. 

Consideration #6:  An initial “fair use” can meet the requirements of 107 (say, 10 bars of music contrasted with another in a documentary film), but a subsequent, related use might not (the same 10 bars in an TV ad for the same documentary).

Consideration #7:  None of this matters if the copy is coming from a license (a contract) that imposes greater restrictions a library.

Bearing these seven “Considerations” in mind, let’s check out the member’s questions in relation to the scenario they provided:

More than once we have received requests to provide digital copies of audio files from institutions that wish to make them accessible either through headphones or as ambient sound as parts of public exhibitions. The exhibitions presumably charge some sort of fee. We have had requests both for commercially released recordings and for archival, unpublished recordings for which we do not own either composer or performers rights, some of them dating prior to 1972.

Question: What do requesting institutions have to do to acquire the necessary rights to play audio at their exhibitions?

Answer: If the work is protected by copyright, and they can’t justify a fair use, they need a license to play the audio at their exhibition.  As the member points out, if the library providing the copy is not also the rights holder, the requesting party needs to work with that third party for permission to play the copy in public (unless it is a fair use).

But that is a secondary consideration for the library who might be providing the copy.  Remember “Consideration #6:” the initial basis for the request could be allowed under 107 or 108, even if a latter use in not allowed. Combine that with what we established in “Consideration #4:” Congress knew that subsequent uses might not be legitimate.  So, to protect libraries, and to protect the sharing of knowledge for purposes of scholarship and creativity, they made it very clear: if the first basis for the copy is legitimate, and the providing library has no knowledge of plans for infringing uses, the providing library will not be liable for infringement.

This is hard, because librarians are both helpful, and tend to be relentless gatherers of information.  If a patron requests a copy and discloses an infringing use for that copy, it cannot legally be provided.  This is true even if the requester subsequently gets a license (since there is no guarantee the license would retroactively extend to the providing library), although at that point, any damage claim would likely be moot. 

Question: Does it matter if audio is provided via headphone or open speakers?

Answer: The number of speakers (headphone or otherwise), the location of the devices, the size of the audience, and the capacity of the venue matter can all matter to an analysis of fair use.  But again, unless the exhibition is the only reason for the request, that information should not impact a providing library’s 108 or 107 analysis, unless the precise use is disclosed as part of the immediate basis of the request.

Question: Does it matter if an entire recording is played vs. an excerpt?

Answer: If the requesting institution is relying on a fair use defense, absolutely, yes.  The amount of the work used is one of the four factors.

Question: Are excerpts of certain duration allowable regardless of securing permissions?

Answer: Recent case law[3] shows that even the tiniest duration can be infringement, if fair use factors are not met.  But don’t let that stop you from providing a 107 copy!  If the fair use factors are met, it is conceivable that a person could use the entire work.  There is no set formula; fair use can only be assessed on a work-by-work basis.

If excerpts of a certain duration are allowed, is it the duty of the holding institution to create the audio files of the excerpted portion rather than providing the audio of an entire work?

This is not a binary question, it is an algorithm.  Here we go:

• The holding institution should try to ascertain if the work is still protected by copyright.  As the member points out, this depends on dates and publication status.  If it is still protected…
• The holding institution should establish what type of copy it is providing: 108(d), 108(d) or 107. 
• If it’s a 108 (d) copy, the institution should document that the 108 (a) and (d) factors are met, and if they are, may copy a “small part” (but remember, 108 doesn’t apply to a musical work).
• If it’s a108 (e) copy, the institution should document that the 108 (a) and (e) factors are met, and if they are, may copy the entire work (by now, you surely remember that 108 doesn’t apply to a musical work).
• If it’s a 107 (fair use) copy, after applying the factors, only copy what’s justified; when in doubt, seek legal advice.  This is tough to give guidance on, because “fair use” can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  For the example provided, there is no clear answer.  Sometimes, even if the access to the work is free, the use isn’t “fair,” while sometimes, even if money is charged, the fair use factors are met.  So if you go down the 107 road, be sure to get information relevant to the factors, stick to the use at hand (not potential later uses), and apply the factors.  This is true for both commercially released recordings and for archival, unpublished recordings (although publication status is part of the second fair use factor).

Question: As many exhibitions occur at locations remote to the holding institution, actual on-site checks for compliance are prohibitive. Does this change anything in terms of how permission forms should be crafted?

Answer: As quoted above, it was the intent of Congress that a library not be liable for subsequent unlawful use.

For a 107 copy, this starts and ends with the library’s assessment of the fair use for the copy at the time of the request.  Your forms should solicit information only about the immediate need for the copy, and assess if the request is within your institution’s comfort zone.  Your forms should not ask about prospective future uses, which may be beyond your control, nor should you feel any obligation to police the use, which is impossible.

Here is food for thought: forms should promote making a 108 copy whenever possible.  108 protection, while narrower, is far less subject to debate; 108 factors are clear and easy to document.  “Fair use,” on the other hand, is often in the eye of the beholder.  Judges must not only apply four factors of analysis, but as recent case law has recently re-affirmed[4], the four factors are not so much weighed, as considered in relation to each other.  It’s a tough analysis that unfortunately inspires erring on the side of caution.  So use 108 whenever it can apply.

A lot of questions, a lot of answers, and a lot of food for thought.  This is a rapidly evolving area of law, so check back in on this issue in a year or so.  The Copyright Office, various library organizations, and Congress all know that the law isn’t quite up to the challenge of technology (108 still uses the word “phonorecord,” which my Spellcheck actually refuses to recognize), so this complex web will continue to evolve. 

And in the meantime, if someone requests a copy of audio by Anthony Barré, use it as an excuse to read Estate of Anthony Barré and Angel Barré v. Carter, et al.  (a/k/a Beyoncé and Jay-Z), because it’s a good illustration of why this response is so very, very convoluted!

[1] House Report 94-1476.

[2] The factors are:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[3] Estate of Anthony Barré and Angel Barré v. Carter, et al. No. 17-1057 (E.D. Lou. July 25, 2017).  In this case, pop star Beyoncé used very small clips from Anthony Barré’s recorded spoken word performances in the song “Formation;” the court ruled that while the amount of Barré’s work used very small, and was but a small part of the song, the overall factors did not make the use fair.

[4] Cambridge University Press v. Mark P. Becker No. 1:08-cv-01425-ODE (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016)

The short answer is: no, this scenario is not a “fair use.”

But that’s not the end! “Fair use”—which is found in Section 107 of the Copyright Act—is not the only exception to copyright infringement.

There is another way.  Section 110 of the Copyright Act provides:

[T]he following are not infringements of copyright:

(1)performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made[.] [emphasis added].[1]

In the cold, scary, expensive world of copyright infringement, section 110 is breath of fresh air.  Unlike section 107, which creates a four-factor “fair use” formula so esoteric, you can consult three lawyers and get six opinions, Section 110’s exceptions are well-defined and clear. [2]

So, can a gathering of instructors and students in a theater on a college campus meet these clear 110 requirements?  Yes! 

But.

The problem is, as used in 110, the term “students” is not broad enough to apply to the member’s precise scenario.  While the 110 term “instructors” includes guest lecturers (if their instructional activities remain confined to the class location and syllabus), the 110 term “pupils” is generally regarded as meaning only enrolled members of a class.  [3]  In addition, it is best if the syllabus for the course, whether for credit or a certificate, supports a conclusion that the viewing context really is a class—not recreation (even if it is enlightening recreation) masquerading as academia.  110 is a powerful exception to infringement, but it has its limits.

107 and 110 exceptions to infringement can sometimes get conflated.  Here are some examples of how they do (or do not) apply, using one of my new favorite movies:

1.  “Black Panther” uncut and shown on campus as part of an open-to-all, educational film series about would not be allowed under either fair use or 110.  Any such showing must be licensed.  

2.  “Black Panther” partially evoked in very small, carefully-chosen selections for an open campus forum on “Women in Major Motion Picture Fight Scenes” could be allowed under “fair use,” but film stills and excerpts must be limited to only what is needed to make a point.

And finally…

3. “Black Panther” shown in its entirety to students enrolled in a “Comics and Society” class would be allowed under 17 U.S.C. 110 (1)…so long as the movie genuinely contributes to the substance of the course, is shown only to enrolled students, and the copy they watch is not pirated. 

What’s the take-away?  Educators should apply “fair use” when needed, but remember that section 110(1) creates exceptions to infringement, too.  It’s no vibranium[4], but is a powerful part of an educator’s arsenal.

[1] Care must be taken to ensure there is no re-transmission of the content.  Another section of 110 does allow for limited re-transmission for online learning, but to qualify, the institution must adhere to all TEACH Act requirements.

[2] There are more than this, and of course, they all come with rules.  Read the statute before relying on 110 to protect you from infringement.

[3] See House Report 94-1476

[4] Special rare metal in “Black Panther;” also, what Captain America’s shield is made from.